The National Audit Office's report on the processing times of migration courts in asylum cases

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the migration courts' processing times in asylum cases

Madam Speaker! Today, the Riksdag will consider the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's report on the processing times of the migration courts in asylum cases.

The National Audit Office's review shows that the migration courts are far from reaching the government's goal of deciding 90 percent of asylum cases within four months.

At the same time, the differences between the courts are large. At the migration court in Gothenburg, the wait for an oral hearing was around 800 days in 2020. This, in turn, extends the processing times. Long processing times mean increased costs for the taxpayers. Immigration that already costs too much becomes even more expensive.

Even though the review points out that a shortage of housing and a shortage of staff are some of the reasons behind longer processing times, common sense says that longer processing times in migration courts are due to the fact that Sweden has pursued an unsustainable immigration policy that Sweden's institutions, whether they are migration courts, schools, or the Police Authority, cannot cope with.

Of course, there is a housing shortage and a staff shortage that lead to longer processing times. But if Sweden had pursued a sensible immigration policy, adapted to Swedish society, there would have been no housing shortage or staff shortage within the migration courts. One would simply have done the right thing and started from what Swedish society can handle.

What is important to say in this context is that the processing times at the migration courts are far too long, despite the government having reinforced the appropriations to the migration courts several times. More money has been added to the migration courts, but Sweden has continued to pursue an unsustainable migration policy. Even in the National Audit Office's review, it appears that the volumes of immigration affect the processing times.

In the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's review, it appears that measures have already been implemented to meet the National Audit Office's recommendations.

That the institutions which are to handle immigration are unable to cope with the situation is primarily related to volume. One way to reduce the volumes regarding asylum immigration is that asylum seekers, immediately after application, are sent to reception units outside the EU, where their application can be investigated. If the investigation were to lead to them being found to have grounds for protection, they would be granted asylum on-site and receive protection without having to travel further. Such a procedure would completely remove all reasons for irregular migration with the purpose of applying for asylum and thereby alleviate the burden on the migration courts. This proposal has been put forward by us in Sverigedemokraterna in our committee motion regarding asylum policy.

Again: That our institutions are overloaded by immigration is volume-related, and the limit for how much immigration Sweden can handle was passed a long time ago.

The Sweden Democrats abstained from submitting follow-up motions to the government's communication because Sweden has received a new government that has the Tidö Agreement, where the Sweden Democrats are one of the cooperating parties, as the basis for its migration policy. With a migration policy based on the Tidö Agreement, immigration to Sweden will decrease significantly, which means that immigration will fall to volumes that facilitate the work of the migration courts.

Immigration that Sweden can manage and that is adapted to Swedish society also implies shorter processing times for asylum seekers and that one can gradually lower the appropriations to the migration courts and redistribute resources to the reforms that are needed here in Sweden.

This audit from the Swedish National Audit Office is one of many audits that show that Sweden has pursued an immigration policy that the country cannot cope with, no matter how many resources we allocate. From the very beginning, the correct measure was to reduce immigration. It is not Sweden that should adapt its migration courts to mass immigration, but it is the immigration policy that should be adapted to the capacity that our migration courts have.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Nima Gholam Ali Pour is speaking about adjusting the number of people who come to Sweden based on how much money we invest in the migration courts.

The right of asylum was introduced in the Geneva Convention after the Second World War and after Europe's countries had said that they were full and could not receive more Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany and had sent them to the Nazis' persecution and genocide. The right of asylum implies a right for every human being to receive protection and not be sent to oppression, persecution and death.

I wish that we could put a stop to war and persecution that force people to flee. Every day, Miljöpartiet works for more peace and more democracy and to stop climate change, which causes even more people to become poor, fuels conflicts in the world and drives people to flee.

Madam Speaker! If we are to uphold the right to asylum and have legally secure asylum processes, we must adapt our systems and reduce processing times by having sufficient resources. We shall not abolish the right to asylum.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! As an elected representative, I know that there are quite a few who do not want to pay how much as it may for immigration. It is important to remember that. The idea is not that we should pay how much tax as it may for a liberal immigration policy that causes our systems to become overloaded. That is the first and perhaps most important thing I want to say.

Right now, a terrible war is ongoing in Ukraine, and the mass flight directive makes it possible for people to seek protection in Sweden.

The right of asylum has, however, been abused. People have fled from Syria to Turkey and then traveled to Germany, Denmark, and finally Sweden. They simply did not seek out the first safe country but abused the right of asylum by claiming they fled from war when they actually fled from Denmark – and Denmark is not a place anyone needs to flee from.

So, regarding the processing times. If we have an immigration policy that does not work, our systems cannot cope with receiving the asylum seekers. We cannot receive as many as we want. There is a limit to what Sweden can handle. We do not have as many school places and homes as we want. When the limit is exceeded, we cannot manage to receive more people and treat them with dignity.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! There are many representatives for the Sweden Democrats who do not understand what the right of asylum entails. It does not entail an obligation to seek asylum in a neighboring country, but it is in neighboring countries that most refugees are located, even from Syria. In Lebanon, every fourth person is a refugee, and so we stand here in wealthy Sweden and say that we do not want to spend more money on our migration courts.

No one can do everything. But in a world where people are forced to flee war and oppression, all the world's countries must take responsibility, including Sweden.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I may have to explain this a bit more pedagogically. It is not okay when a person flees and arrives in a safe country but does not seek asylum there, but instead wants to travel further as an economic migrant to a country with a more generous welfare system.

People come to Sweden and seek asylum here even though they have traveled through all of Europe, and I cannot imagine that Annika Hirvonen thinks it is appropriate that one first leaves an area for a safe country and then leaves the safe country to get to Sweden. That is not how the right of asylum is supposed to work; people fleeing from a war zone should seek protection in another country, not travel through safe areas. That is not seeking asylum. If one chooses a European country with a generous welfare system, one is an economic migrant. This is what is happening, and it has nothing to do with the right of asylum.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I want to comment on the last thing that the Sweden Democrats' Nima Gholam Ali Pour said in the exchange, that the right of asylum does not mean that one is allowed to travel through several countries to seek asylum. That is simply not how the right of asylum works, SD claims. But SD is wrong. Perhaps that is how SD wants the right of asylum to work – that Lebanon should receive all refugees from Syria because Lebanon is a neighboring country.

My and the Green Party's view is that it is good for other countries to help each other. One can take the situation in Ukraine as an example. Poland takes an enormous responsibility, just as neighboring countries in other war zones around the world do. But it is good that more countries in Europe also help to receive Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war. It is good that many help each other, because then there are better opportunities for those fleeing to enter society, get good housing, and so on.

I have personally been to Poland and seen how ordinary people have opened up their homes and let refugees sleep in guest rooms or on sofa beds. Thanks to many helping out, it can become easier and better conditions for refugees. The right of asylum as it looks today gives refugees the right to seek asylum in the country they are in.

Madam Speaker! This debate concerns the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the processing times of the migration courts in asylum cases. I did not think it would become a debate about how many refugees come to Sweden and about the existence or non-existence of asylum rights, but I thought that this debate would primarily be about how we ensure legal certainty in the asylum process in Sweden.

Today, many asylum seekers and others who receive their decisions from the Swedish Migration Agency are waiting very long - illegally long - for their decisions. There are refugees who have had to wait for several years for a decision. Refugees who arrived in 2015 have had to wait until 2018 for a decision. Living in such uncertainty for so long is incredibly stressful, especially if one is already fleeing persecution and war and especially if one is already living with the uncertainty of a split family and without contact with one's parents or children.

Processing times must be shortened, and this must be an important priority for the government. We in Miljöpartiet have fought hard to give Migrationsverket and the courts more resources so that they can hire employees so that processing times can be shortened. It is a cost in one item in the budget, but it is a saving on people's suffering and actually on other items in the budget. It is economically smart to ensure that processing goes quickly and that people can quickly receive their decisions. If they are granted asylum in Sweden, they can quickly enter society and know that it is in Sweden that they have the right to stay. It facilitates integration for these people in society.

The security of receiving one's decision is important. It is important in order to, for example, be able to begin trauma care for torture that one has been subjected to. If one does not know whether one will remain, it can even be the case that one cannot begin treatment because the care provider wants to be sure that the treatment can be completed. It can also be the case that the insecurity itself leads to it being difficult to receive the care one needs.

We can put ourselves in their shoes - if it were we who had moved to another country and lived with the uncertainty of whether we are allowed to stay here or not. It is clear that it affects the motivation to immerse oneself in just that small language in the world that is Swedish. In fact, immigrants are not even allowed to start Swedish for immigrants until they have received their decision. The faster we make decisions, the faster the doors that are needed for people to be able to enter society are opened. It is also good with fast decisions for those who receive a rejection, because the time here, in uncertainty, should be as short as possible.

We in Miljöpartiet propose a number of measures in our accompanying motion to improve processing times. We also want an investigation into strengthened legal certainty where shorter processing times are an important part.

There are many other problems with the legal certainty in the asylum process. We see, for example, now how people who have sought asylum in Sweden and who have fled from Afghanistan have been denied in Sweden and have then fled from Sweden to other countries that have said it is obvious that they should be granted protection, on exactly the same grounds and with exactly the same evidence. Something is simply problematic with the security in Sweden.

We have also had legally secure age assessments where people have suddenly been deprived of their rights as children on unscientific methodological grounds. Many issues must be ensured, for example the assessment of converts, i.e., persons who have left one religion for another, and the assessment of hbtqi persons in the handling by the Swedish Migration Agency and the courts. These are some of the issues where we in Miljöpartiet demand that the government appoint an independent inquiry. Ultimately, it is about people's lives, and legally secure processes risk, in the worst case, leading to incorrect decisions and to persons being deported to their death.

Madam Speaker! With these words, I move for the approval of the reservation, which we in Miljöpartiet have together with Vänsterpartiet.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is true that this is not a debate on the right of asylum. At the same time, the number of asylum seekers affects the capacity of the migration courts, so it borders on that.

Madam Speaker! I may not have explained properly, so I will do it once more. When one flees from a war and seeks protection somewhere, one should seek asylum. That is correct, but when one arrives in a safe country and is no longer in any danger and then travels further to, let us say, Sweden, one has other motives. It no longer has to do with the right to asylum. I cannot understand how Annika Hirvonen links the motive of trying to seek out a country where there are good economic conditions with the right to asylum, because those are two completely different things.

Since, Madam Speaker, I have a question. Does Annika Hirvonen not believe that a liberal migration policy will sooner or later overburden the migration courts or lead to the bill becoming too expensive for the taxpayers?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Nima Gholam Ali Pour is confusing two different things. I believe that he is confusing the right to asylum and the regulatory framework that exists within the EU regarding Dublin cases, where a person who has first arrived in an EU country and then seeks asylum in another EU country shall be sent back to the first EU country where the person was located. It is a regulatory framework. It is not the same thing as the right to asylum according to the Geneva Convention.

According to what the EU has agreed upon, and which is now also being discussed in the migration pact, it is the case today that the first country a person arrives in within the EU is the country that shall examine the asylum application. In some cases, the European Court of Justice has stated that certain countries are not sufficiently secure in terms of the rule of law for this to be applicable. For example, Dublin transfers to Greece were stopped for a period of time because the Greek asylum system did not function at all.

But it is not the same thing as the right of asylum. It is not the same thing as it being wrong for a person who, for example, first flees from Syria and then comes to Lebanon, and subsequently seeks to move further to Europe. They are two different things.

To claim that the right of asylum is being abused by people who do so is simply not true. Then, one can from the Sweden Democrats think that it should be illegal to leave Lebanon and seek asylum somewhere else. The Green Party does not agree. But that is an opinion, and it is not about asylum seekers breaking any rules or abusing the right of asylum.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen referred to certain regulations, but that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about common sense. I said that if someone flees from a country and seeks asylum in the nearest country and is then in safety, but then chooses a country in Europe based on the economic conditions that this person can obtain, then it is not about the right to asylum. In that case, this person is an economic migrant.

If Annika Hirvonen ignores the regulatory framework for a while, what does she think personally? If one has economic motives, it no longer has anything to do with asylum. Annika Hirvonen must also agree with this, otherwise she has to explain herself.

The people who can come to a safe country and then travel further often have a lot of money with them. One cannot travel through Europe if one lacks money. One must have tens of thousands of kronor with them to be able to travel from Greece further to Germany, further to Denmark, and further to Sweden. All these journeys and hotel nights cost money. Then it is about wealthy individuals who have planned these journeys. These are not asylum seekers. They are pure economic migrants. And somewhere, Annika Hirvonen must also distinguish these people from asylum seekers who flee because they are afraid of dying or because they are persecuted.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I personally find it downright repulsive that SD demonizes refugees and writes about grounds for asylum using words like economic migrants. I understand that Nima Gholam Ali Pour has adopted much of this rhetoric within the Sweden Democrats. But do not confuse the right to asylum with the Sweden Democrats' worldview.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! It is of course very serious that we still do not reach the goal of deciding 90 percent of asylum cases within four months. We in M have inherited this situation, and we also intend to resolve it as soon as we can. For us, it is therefore pleasing that resources are now being added already in 2023 to improve the situation in Sweden and for the migration courts.

Madam Speaker! One must also remember that long processing times are a general problem in Sweden's courts. It is not something that only occurs at the migration courts. We do not believe either that it is a problem that can be solved simply through some kind of quick fix by transferring a bundle of money. It is a somewhat broader problem than that. New judges need to be trained. It also appears from the Swedish National Audit Office's report that new premises are needed, and such things naturally take time. So even if one has money, that is not everything. There are also other things that take time that one must take into account.

Madam Speaker! It is also pleasing to read in the report that the situation is now actually beginning to improve. This is likely an effect of the fact that asylum reception has decreased in recent years, which of course in the next step reduces the pressure on the migration courts.

I also believe that one effect could be that during the corona pandemic there were many hearings that were cancelled at the last minute, which burdened the courts. Now that the courts can begin to return to more ordinary operations and do not have so many cancelled hearings, it also alleviates the situation and reduces the processing time for cases. We believe that this will have an effect. We see it already now, and it appears in the report.

It is not far-fetched to believe that the previous government's open-borders policy, which was conducted for quite so many years, might actually be the entire reason why we have the situation we have today at the migration courts. Sweden has had a large asylum reception, and it is clear that if one has that, it also has consequences in the next stage. First, it is the Swedish Migration Agency that receives a large number of cases that they must handle. When the Swedish Migration Agency has worked its way through them, they sometimes end up at the migration courts, and then it can result in long processing times.

Given the total change of course that the new government is making in this issue within the migration area, there are, in my opinion, no reasons to doubt that the pressure on the migration courts will continue to decrease even further in the next stage.

There is support for the Tidö Agreement in Sweden's Riksdag, and it will be implemented. I believe that will have an effect in this regard as well.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I also want to urge a certain caution from us politicians when it comes to over-regulating the courts' order of priority between different cases in the country, even though we of course should have opinions on it. The migration courts are part of the administrative courts. If one sets too sharp requirements on, for example, deadlines for a certain type of case, as two parties are now doing, one also risks creating a situation where perhaps other pressing cases in the administrative court are affected. It could be about LVU, LPT, LVM, or about people who have been affected by a municipal decision in some way and want to review it in court. Therefore, it is, in my view in any case, no desirable consequence to be too sharp in the directives from here. First, we must get more staff into the courts. Then we can probably see an effect. And we see, as said, already a decline.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Magnus Resare speaks in his speech about an open-borders policy. But Sweden has not had open borders, at least not in modern times. Possibly some time before in the Middle Ages, what do I know.

I think it is problematic to present reality in a way that is not correct, both for the people who are listening to this and who might get the impression that there are open borders to Sweden and make decisions based on that, and because it misleads the voters and the citizens. Sweden has had a regulated migration policy for a very long time. What we and most other countries in the world have is the right of asylum based on the Geneva Convention, i.e., the right not to be deported to oppression and death.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the comment on the motion, I also want to ask Magnus Resare whether the Moderates, who lead Sweden's government, will appoint an independent inquiry into the legal certainty in the asylum process that can look at the illegally long processing times, which have affected asylum seekers but also others who have different cases in, among other things, migration cases. The inquiry can also include the legally uncertain age assessments and the incredibly problematic assessments that have been made of converts and hbtqi persons in the asylum process.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by answering what concerns open borders. It was the case that, particularly in 2015, we saw 150,000 people come to Sweden during one year, and it is clear that this becomes a strain on our system. This applies, among other things, to the Swedish Migration Agency, which did an incredible job and processed 150,000 cases, even though it took time.

As Annika Hirvonen was in before, there were those who had their cases reviewed in 2018 even though they arrived in 2015. But it is clear that you cannot just take someone in and let them start investigating asylum cases. It takes time there too. That process, therefore, had to take time. When the cases had then been worked through, they obviously ended up at the migration courts, and then it became a strain for that authority. This has nothing to do with whether one thinks it is right or wrong with asylum. It is obvious that any system whatsoever becomes strained if one is used to perhaps 20,000-30,000 cases per year and it suddenly becomes five times that - it doesn't matter if it is the migration courts or something else.

Regarding an investigation, I believe we will have to return to that question. It is nothing that I can provide answers on today from the rostrum.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! There was no special policy conducted in 2015 that had not also been conducted in 2014 or 2013, during the time that the Moderaterna led Sweden's government. What happened and what was the big difference was that more people fled to Europe, not least from Syria and the war there.

I cannot remember – but Magnus Resare is welcome to remind me – which proposals the Moderaterna pushed then, before 2015, that would have changed this. My perception is that what would have really made a difference was if we had ended the war in Syria or the persecution of Hazaras in Afghanistan or possibly ensured that al-Shabab could stop terrorizing people in Somalia. These are measures that would have guaranteed preventing so many people from being forced to flee in 2015.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen and I are in full agreement that there are problems in the world. Now, this debate is about the processing times of the migration courts. One must see that the heavy reception we had during a few years in the mid-2010s naturally affected that system.

We see in the report that is the subject of the debate right now that the levels are on the way down and that it is beginning to become a better situation. In that case, I think it is a good thing to let see what happens now and if it becomes better.

We will reform the migration policy in Sweden, which will probably lead to lower asylum reception. If there is a lower asylum reception, we will also likely have a lower burden on the migration courts. We can well start by seeing where this leads before we begin to steer the courts too much. That is also what we propose when we move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's report "Awaiting judgment - migration courts' processing times in asylum cases". The first thing that should be said in this context is that reading the aforementioned report constitutes a very sad exercise.

At its core, it is about people who may have to wait for several years for their cases to be finalized by the migration courts. It is both unreasonable and inhumane. Furthermore, it is in complete conflict with the intentions of the reform introduced in 2006, whose declared purpose was to create a legally secure and prompt handling of the appeals in the asylum-related permit cases.

An example of what the waiting times can look like is the Migration Court in Gothenburg, where, according to the National Audit Office's report, it takes an average of 800 days before an oral hearing is held - 800 days! The situation is slightly better at the Migration Court in Malmö, where the average is 400 days. In Stockholm and Luleå, it takes an average of between 150 and 200 days. The average waiting times before one receives a ruling from the respective migration court are obviously longer than those mentioned above, which only apply to one stage of this so protracted process.

Madam Speaker! This bleak reality rhymes very poorly with the government's established goal for the migration courts that 90 percent of asylum cases should be decided within four months. The distance between fiction and reality is so great in this case that the previous government, according to the National Audit Office's report, chose to reformulate this goal and say that it should be "regarded as a target image, rather than a requirement." Here we find ourselves, Madam Speaker, in the world of dreams and utopias, where the creative use of language is intended to hide an obvious political failure.

It is true that the migration crisis in 2015, with a large increase in appeals to the migration courts from 2017 onwards, has played a significant role in the emergence of such an unacceptable situation. But as the Swedish National Audit Office's report correctly points out, the migration courts' goal fulfillment was far from satisfactory even before 2015. The strain, or even the suffering, for those individuals who for several years have had to live in this painful limbo cannot be overemphasized.

Furthermore, the unreasonably long waiting times are costly for society. And even more importantly: They can contribute to the outcome of the case being affected.

Before stating these deficiencies and problems, the question arises regarding the responsibility of the previous governments in this context. The Swedish National Audit Office's critical remarks in this regard are worth repeating and emphasizing. The Swedish National Audit Office states verbatim the following.

Firstly, it is written that "the government has failed to create the conditions for a long-term stable supply of skills at the migration courts."

Secondly, it is written that "against the background that only the Migration Court in Stockholm has been close to achieving the goal even before the increase in the number of asylum cases, and since the courts' own operational goals often deviate significantly from the government's, the Swedish National Audit Office assesses that the goal cannot be considered compatible with available resources."

Madam Speaker! In view of these observations, it is gratifying to note that the new government in the budget bill has noted the problematic situation of the migration courts and proposed an increase of 8.3 percent for 2023 compared to the appropriation for 2022. The estimated appropriations for 2024 and 2025 increase even more and correspond to an increase of just over 20 percent in relation to the 2022 level.

Madam Speaker! With these remarks regarding the previous governments' way of handling this issue, I believe that we, according to the committee's proposal, can submit the government's communication to the records and simultaneously reject the motions in the follow-up motions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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