Stricter requirements for public assistants and increased competence requirements for interpreters in migration cases

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering a bill on stricter requirements for public assistance and increased competence requirements for interpreters in migration cases. We Social Democrats support the bill.

It affects the very foundation of legal certainty in the migration process. It is about how we ensure that the person seeking protection in Sweden receives a correct assessment and that the state has a robust system that cannot be exploited by unserious actors.

We have unfortunately seen recurring deficiencies in quality both in the public assistants and in the interpretation.

The purpose of the bill is to strengthen legal certainty for the individual and for the state. Migrationsverket, the courts, Statskontoret, Kammarkollegiet, Säkerhetspolisen, and JO have all pointed out problems that need to be addressed.

A legal process is never better than the information that comes forward. In migration cases, almost all central information passes through an interpreter. Therefore, the interpreter is not a technical aid, but the interpreter is a prerequisite for legal certainty.

In migration cases, it is often about life, safety, and the future. Every word in a conversation or a statement can affect the outcome. A mistranslation can lead to a rejection or approval on a false basis. It can lead to longer processing times and more appeals.

The interpreter is the bridge between the individual and the state. Authorized interpreters and documented competence are crucial for the rule of law to function.

Madam Speaker! The problems in today's system are well-documented, and they are serious. This has been shown in the lack of quality in public assistance. Some representatives have taken an unreasonable number of cases and delivered low quality. The authorities have not had the tools to stop them.

We have had interpreters without sufficient competence. Only a small proportion of the interpreters in Sweden are authorized. For several languages, there is no formal training at all. There are documented cases of incorrect translations.

This also leads to a vulnerability to influence and unserious actors. There are examples of interpreters and assistants with links to criminal environments. The regulatory framework has not been sufficient to prevent this.

What does this bill do for the problems then? Well, the bill tightens the eligibility requirements for public assistants and gives authorities the possibility to declare representatives ineligible. It limits the possibility of substitution, so that as an appointed public assistant, one cannot send someone else in one's place. Requirements are introduced for an authorized interpreter when possible, and requirements are set for documented competence, suitability, and experience when authorization is lacking. It clarifies the responsibility of Migrationsverket and the courts. The State is given the possibility to deny unsuitable actors. It strengthens the State's control capacity.

Madam Speaker! It has turned out that the problems in the system are structural. What we are doing now is about creating a migration process where those who have the right to stay are allowed to stay and where those who do not get a correct decision. At the same time, we protect the process from unserious actors and improper influence.

It is not reasonable that life-altering decisions should rest on deficient translations or representatives who do not measure up. The person who meets the Swedish state shall meet quality, professionalism, and a system that stands firm. Therefore, this is a necessary reform. And therefore, we Social Democrats also stand behind the proposal. We will continue to push to ensure that the entire migration chain maintains the highest possible standard – from the first conversation to the final decision.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a bill where one of the proposals is that the eligibility requirements for public counsel shall be tightened. In the bill, it is required that a lawyer, an associate lawyer at a law firm, or any other person who has passed the knowledge tests required for eligibility for a judicial appointment shall be appointed as public counsel.

Sweden is transitioning the migration policy to a migration policy that is restrictive and sustainable. Part of this is, of course, that the volumes will decrease to levels that a country like Sweden can manage. The volumes shall be adapted to the Swedish welfare system and society and not to certain people's consciences.

Another part of this transition is that those who work within this migration system shall have a certain basic knowledge. A sign that there is order and structure in the migration system is that the persons who work with migration shall have an appropriate education that suits their assignment.

The National Audit Office, in its review of the handling of public counsel in migration cases, has identified certain deficiencies, for example, that there are public counsels who are judged to lack basic legal competence. This is unacceptable. When people who do not pass the basic course in law represent people in life-altering cases, the system has failed. It actually must not be the case that the client can state the Aliens Act better than their public counsel.

To understand why these changes are necessary, one also needs to understand how the system of public legal counsel in migration cases actually functions.

When a foreigner seeks asylum or protection or has certain other types of matters, they often have the right to a public counsel. It is the state that appoints the counsel, and it is the state that pays the compensation. In practice, this means that certain authorities and courts order public counsel, many of them in very complex matters concerning grounds for protection, medical obstacles, security matters, or questions regarding enforcement.

The system is based on the premise that the person appointed must be skilled enough to understand the Aliens Act, EU law, and the extensive international conventions that apply. But for a long time, it has been far too easy to become a public assistant in migration cases. There has been a great variation in quality – from very competent lawyers to persons who had neither sufficient legal knowledge nor an understanding of their obligations.

A recurring problem is that the state has in practice lacked tools to ensure quality. The compensation system has often prioritized quantity over quality, because the compensation is paid per case or hour without clear control over how well the assistant actually represents their client. This has in some cases led to completely unsuitable persons continuing to receive state funds for assignments where they have not delivered the work required.

Public counsel receive compensation from the state. It is therefore a self-evident matter that they must have the knowledge necessary to be able to represent their clients. Part of the bill that we are discussing today is that the person appointed as public counsel shall also otherwise be particularly suitable for the assignment. This means that a person who has previously demonstrated poor judgment or inappropriate behavior in such a way that the court deems him or her unsuitable for the assignment shall not be able to be appointed, even if the person has the knowledge and experience required for the assignment.

At the same time, it is important that unsuitable representatives and assistants can be declared ineligible to participate in migration cases. Therefore, the government proposes in the bill that if a representative or assistant is judged to be unsuitable for their assignment, the Swedish Migration Agency, the Police Authority, or the Swedish Security Service shall be allowed to declare him or her ineligible to be a representative or assistant at the agency, either for a certain period or indefinitely. If one loses trust, one should not continue to clock in and invoice the state. It is that simple.

The Swedish Migration Agency notes that it occurs that persons who have been assessed as unsuitable to represent an applicant as a public counsel instead register as the applicant's representative.

According to the Swedish Security Service, higher requirements are placed on the representatives and assistants who appear in cases where the Swedish Security Service is involved.

The risk increases that secret information will be disclosed if the counsel or the assistant has connections to the same terrorist organization, violent environment, or foreign power as the foreigner.

But there are also other actors than public assistants within the migration system where requirements need to be raised in order to have a migration system where there is order and clarity. Interpreters are another group where there have not really been requirements on who is hired and where irregularities have occurred.

In the proposition, the government proposes that competence requirements shall be introduced for interpreters and translators in migration cases. In oral proceedings and translation in migration cases where a public counsel may be involved, the authority shall, if possible, hire an interpreter or translator who is authorized. Otherwise, another suitable person shall be hired.

To assess the suitability of a public counsel or an interpreter, the relevant authorities need to process certain personal data to make certain suitability assessments. Therefore, it is proposed in the bill that a new purpose provision shall be introduced in the Aliens Data Act which explicitly states that the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority may process personal data for the assessment of a person's suitability for assignments as a public counsel or interpreter.

The data may concern various deviations. It could involve an interpreter who has misbehaved by not conveying what was said or by inserting their own values into the translation. An interpreter's task is to translate, not to review. It could involve public advocates who have been convicted of crimes. But also specific competencies of public advocates that are needed in certain cases will be registered, for example, knowledge of children's rights or converts.

It is not about pointing out certain interpreters and public assistants. It is about creating the best possible basis so that suitable people can work within the migration system.

Today, it is certain officials who sit on all the knowledge regarding which public advocates and interpreters have mismanaged themselves. When those officials change jobs, the knowledge disappears. Therefore, the relevant authorities need to have this information so that state funds do not end up with public advocates and interpreters who mismanage their duties. A justice system cannot be built on who happens to remember what.

The proposition also enables the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority to exchange more information regarding data that is significant for the control of the suitability of public legal assistants and interpreters.

It is largely the same individuals who are appointed as public defenders by the Swedish Migration Agency and by the Police Authority. The same interpreters can also appear at the authorities. There are therefore advantages to enabling an increased exchange of information that is significant for the suitability assessment of public defenders and interpreters.

The information may concern details regarding the reason why an assistant is not deemed suitable and for how long the assistant in question will not be granted new assignments.

These proposals appear obvious to most. It is well-understood that someone who is to translate actually translates properly and that the person who is to act as a public assistant has the required knowledge. But unfortunately, this has not been entirely obvious. Today we ensure that it becomes so.

This is only possible because the influx of migrants is no longer chaotic. When we are not overwhelmed by a large quantity of foreigners arriving in Sweden, we can consider giving those few who come here a high-quality assessment.

This will only be possible if we continue to pursue a restrictive migration policy, because there are not as many public assistants as there are who will be able to live up to these requirements. There are not as many interpreters as there are who have the competence that will be needed.

Sweden's capacity to receive people from other countries is very limited. Unfortunately, there are some other parties in this chamber that still have not understood this. One can close one's eyes to the volumes, but the volumes do not close their eyes to Sweden. Migration policy does not adapt to dreams. It must be adapted to what Sweden can manage.

With this bill, we also close the door on many conflicts that, due to the multicultural society, have characterized the migration system. It could be about Muslim public officials who treat Christian converts poorly. It could be about Turks and Kurds who end up in conflict with one another. It could be about a male interpreter who considers a female asylum seeker to be dressed inappropriately.

Such deviations will be recorded, and such public assistants and interpreters will not be welcome in the migration system. Sweden cannot accept that parallel conflicts from the Middle East are imported straight into our legal processes. The migration system shall not become an arena for old antagonisms or religious power struggles.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering a bill that touches upon the very core of what a rule of law is. It is not just about laws and rules, but it is about trust – about every human being, regardless of background, language or situation, being able to trust that the state treats them fairly. Therefore, the proposal is about something much greater than eligibility requirements, registers and decrees. It is about the quality of the help that people in vulnerable situations receive when their future is at stake.

Madam Speaker! The vast majority of subordinates do a professional, responsible, and dignified job, but reality has also shown certain shortcomings. The reports from the National Audit Office, courts, and the Swedish Migration Agency show that there are exceptions and that these exceptions are not small deviations but have real consequences for individual people.

It does not feel good when some public assistants, primarily in asylum cases, lack the competence required and are therefore not suitable for their assignments. It does not feel good when the Swedish National Audit Office notes that some assistants lack basic legal competence.

It also does not feel good that it is quite common for appointed public advocates to have someone else take their place and that the quality and efficiency in some cases have deteriorated as a result of the so-called substitution. That lawyers in some cases have established a system of accepting the assignments and then directly handing them over to a colleague, without a check of suitability, does not feel good. A review shows that the person who replaces the appointed advocate is often not checked at all. This means that the specific competence and experience that formed the basis for the original choice can be lost.

The violations do not stop there, however, as the Swedish Migration Agency has also reported on interpreters who neglect their assignments. They do not convey what is said, lack language skills, or act biasedly. The agency also states that it is difficult to act effectively against these interpreters.

Madam Speaker! We simply cannot have it this way. This is not just a technical issue, but it is about legal certainty and about people's lives and futures. It is not acceptable for persons without sufficient legal competence to represent the most vulnerable. It is not acceptable for assistants to take on assignments and then pass them on to anyone in their vicinity. It is also not acceptable that the authorities lack tools to act when serious deficiencies arise. That is why the government is acting.

The proposal means that only trained lawyers, through knowledge, experience, and special suitability, shall be able to be appointed as public counsel. The appointing authority or the court shall continue to assess each case individually and weigh in specific competence needs, for example when it concerns children, persons with disabilities or other vulnerable groups. With this, we raise the quality of and increase the confidence in the entire system.

Now there will also be an end to sending assignments through so-called substitution without permission. The Government proposes that a public counsel must have a special permit to be replaced by someone else.

Madam Speaker! The proposal also gives the authorities the opportunity to intervene when assistants and interpreters have proven to be unsuitable, so that they are not given new assignments. To bar someone from future assignments is a major measure, but sometimes it is necessary to protect the individual from serious deficiencies. It is also important to emphasize that the decisions are appealable, which strengthens legal certainty for both sides.

That assistants and interpreters have the right competence is a prerequisite for both legal certainty and trust in the Swedish asylum process. Consider that a single mistranslated word or an interpreter's missed nuance in the translation can be completely decisive! Mistranslations can have devastating consequences. Therefore, clear competence requirements for interpreters and translators are now proposed. Authorized interpreters who have undergone competence testing shall be used when possible, and in other cases, a suitable person shall be hired. It must not be just anyone or someone randomly selected.

Madam Speaker! The bill is an investment in legal certainty. It ensures that tax revenues are used effectively and guarantees that competent lawyers represent those who need it most. It also ensures that the interpretation maintains the quality that the situation requires. The competence is tested in every individual appointment. The assignments are followed up, deviations can be registered, and those who misconduct themselves can no longer continue as if nothing happened.

We strengthen the rule of law, we strengthen trust, and we strengthen the protection for the individual. We safeguard a fundamental principle of the rule of law that the one who represents another does so with knowledge, respect, and responsibility.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move that the Riksdag rejects all motion proposals and approves the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Dear fellow committee members! This is actually my colleague Annika Hirvonen's area of responsibility, but she has been prevented from attending. I will therefore explain the reason why we in Miljöpartiet have submitted a reservation.

We welcome the government's initiative to tighten the qualification requirements for public assistants and interpreters, but we believe there is a need for further tightening and clarifications.

We believe that the government should introduce a system with mandatory and recurring knowledge tests for those lawyers who wish to undertake assignments as public counsel. Ensuring the correct competence of these actors is crucial for the rule of law, which we all uphold. We do not share the government's assessment that there is a lack of need for such knowledge tests. On the contrary, we believe that continuous continuing education and verification of knowledge is a prerequisite for maintaining high quality and high trust within the migration process.

We also consider it to be a violation of legal certainty that the Swedish Migration Agency should appoint public counsel in migration cases. The current arrangement, where the authority handling the case also appoints the asylum seeker's legal representative, means in practice that the individual's defender is appointed by the opposing party. That the government does not propose a change to the current arrangement weakens the legal protection and undermines both the principle of independence and the public's trust in the system.

If the court were given responsibility for appointing assistants, it would contribute to ensuring a better distribution of assignments, clearer quality control and, in the long run, strengthened opportunities for individuals to uphold their rights – as well as better working conditions for assistants.

Independence for public counsel is particularly crucial in cases concerning people on the move. Often, these individuals have limited knowledge of the Swedish legal system, and their future is determined by how effectively their rights are upheld.

Furthermore, there is a need for public advocates representing children to have special competence for this purpose, including knowledge of children's rights, development and needs, as well as the ability to communicate with children at their level. Even though it is already possible today to weigh in such factors within the framework of the order, we do not consider this to be sufficient here.

To guarantee that children's interests are safeguarded in the best possible way, specific requirements regarding competence for public advocates representing children should be established in the legal text. I also believe that this should be expanded to include advocates representing other groups who may need special support, such as LGBTQI refugees, converts, or persons with disabilities.

I have a few more additions. The government seems to be planning a massive reform of the system of public counsel which, in contrast to today's changes, will severely deteriorate the legal certainty in the asylum process and lead to higher costs. If the government proceeds with the proposal to limit the right to public counsel at the Swedish Migration Agency to only one hour, the risk is obvious that asylum grounds will not be brought forward and that people who harbor a well-founded fear of persecution will be sent back to their home countries.

A single consultation hour does not go far. One must remember that these meetings are practically always interpreted, and thus the time for conversation is halved in practice to half an hour. To do a good job in such a short time and be able to convey all the information that people need to enjoy basic human rights appears to be pure wishful thinking.

We suspect that the purpose perhaps is not quite to make it go correctly, but rather that it is actually about making the process more legally uncertain in order to have more people who have a right to asylum deported from Sweden. It is shameful.

With these words, I move for approval of the Green Party's reservation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 November.)

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