Response to interpellation 2023/24:557 on the review of the asylum process in accordance with the Tidö Agreement
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government is implementing a paradigm shift in migration policy through reforms in the Tidö Agreement 1. M believes that the right to asylum should be upheld according to international rules 1 2 and that a new reception system without own housing is more humane 2. M believes that prioritizing women, girls, and hbtqi-persons is a wise order 3 and that Migrationsverket should strengthen the work with safe countries of origin through expanded analysis work. S argues that the Tidö Agreement aims to reduce migration regardless of consequences for human rights 4. S believes that the agreement implies that they reduce the number of quota refugees by prioritizing integration capacity 4 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Azra Muranovic has asked me how I will take into account the actual quality and legal certainty of the asylum process in the light of the Tidö Agreement in order to avoid undermining the principles of the rule of law.
After one and a half years with the Tidö Agreement, we can state that the paradigm shift in migration policy that the government promised is being implemented. The government is restructuring migration policy at its core, and we are moving forward with a number of concrete reforms for a responsible and restrictive migration policy. Fundamental to this work is that the right of asylum is upheld through the binding international rules that Sweden has committed to follow, such as EU law, the European Convention, and the UN Refugee Convention.
The Government has appointed a number of inquiries into those parts of the Tidö Agreement that concern legislation. Currently, inquiries are underway to reform all parts of the migration policy, including the asylum regulations, reception, return, the use of detention, and when a residence permit can be revoked. The inquiries include conducting in-depth impact assessments to ensure that the proposals comply with EU law and other international commitments. The proposals submitted shall be designed in accordance with internationally agreed norms that safeguard legal certainty.
It is important that the asylum process is legally secure and maintains high quality. The Government therefore gave, in December 2023, in accordance with the Tidö Agreement, a mandate to Statskontoret to conduct a review of the asylum process with the aim of strengthening quality, uniformity, and legal certainty. Statskontoret shall look more closely at Migrationsverket's handling of asylum cases, including those concerning converts and hbtqi persons but also other types of asylum cases. The mandate also includes reviewing the need for an external oversight function or inspection in the migration area. The mandate shall be reported by October 7, 2024, at the latest.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
As stated in the interpellation, Sweden is a country that has signed the UN Refugee Convention. This means, among other things, that Sweden shall examine each person's application for asylum individually and that it shall be done by an independent processor.
In the individual assessment, it is to be taken into account whether the applicant's gender identity or sexual orientation, for example, if the applicant is homosexual or bisexual or is a trans person. Thereafter, Sweden shall grant residence permit to those who are refugees according to the UN Convention but can also grant residence permits to those in need of alternative protection in accordance with the EU's common rules.
I agree that an examination of the right of asylum must, of course, be legally secure and of good quality. But it is difficult to see that the legal security should take its starting point in the Tidö Agreement. This applies especially because the Tidö Agreement aims to make it more difficult to be an asylum seeker but also a refugee or undocumented.
The overall goal of the Tidö Agreement is to reduce migration regardless of what consequences it may have for the individual's human rights or dignity. We also see a clear conflation where an equivalence is set between migration and crime, and people with migration experience are often singled out as the cause of Sweden's problems.
Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement has been harshly criticized, among other things, by Civil Rights Defenders. Specific elements in the Tidö Agreement have been pointed out, for example, transit centers for the entire asylum process where people are to be detained or the limitation of resettlement to Sweden. This means, in practice, that the number of quota refugees is being reduced and that UNHCR's selection of quota refugees shall provide a well-founded forecast for good integration. This does not take into account the need for protection but rather the capacity for integration.
We can take the example of the review of the examination of asylum cases from safe countries. The Swedish Migration Agency uses a list of so-called safe countries of origin that the authority assumes. From there, one naturally does not need to seek protection. For an individual from such a country who seeks protection in Sweden, it implies an increased risk that the asylum case will not proceed and that the individual will be deported before they have time to appeal a negative decision.
Adding further countries to such a list therefore entails an increased risk of a lack of legal certainty and a restriction of the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits states from sending anyone back to a country where their life or freedoms are put at risk.
My first question to the Minister is whether she could elaborate on what needs to be reformed in all parts of the asylum law. What exactly is wrong today? This particularly concerns the asylum regulations.
Could the government also explain in what way it will guarantee a legally secure asylum process that does not lead to Sweden deviating from the UN Refugee Convention, our own legislation, and EU rules?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me be very clear: The Government and the Tidö parties are for a restrictive, responsible migration policy. It is not the same as it should not be legally secure, which is sometimes implied. I would say it is the opposite.
We usually say that a no should be a no; if one is denied, one should leave the country. But precisely because decisions have very large consequences for the individual, the review preceding the decision must be legally secure. That is why it appears clearly from the Tidö Agreement that the right of asylum and the binding international rules that Sweden has committed to follow shall also be upheld. This includes EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the UN Refugee Convention.
That is why we now, unlike previous S-led governments, have had the National Audit Office look more closely at the Swedish Migration Agency's handling of asylum cases, especially those concerning converts and hbtqi persons, which the member also specifically highlighted. Genuinely difficult assessments must be made there. It is also why the Swedish Migration Agency, according to its instructions, shall have a predictable and uniform decision-making process with high legal quality.
It is true that the government and the coalition partner want a lot with the migration policy. Therefore, the pace of reform is also very high. We are moving forward with several significant investigations. The background is the enormous failure with integration that we see. It is a consequence of a combination of an unsustainable level of asylum migration and a lack of active, functioning integration policy.
Now we take responsibility. However, this does not mean that we compromise on quality. The assignments therefore include that in-depth impact assessments shall be carried out and that it must be ensured that the proposals comply with our international commitments and norms. We understand that the decisions that are made, and that must be made, are intrusive for the individuals, just as I said. For that very reason, it is important to have order and clarity in the entire asylum process.
I recoiled a bit when Azra Muranovic said that it is going to become harder to be an asylum seeker. It is exactly the opposite. EBO, the possibility of own housing during the asylum process, has been a total failure. This has also been raised many times by many Social Democratic municipal politicians, but nothing has happened during previous S-led governments.
The possibility of EBO leads to people disappearing and having poorer contact with the authorities. It becomes harder to identify vulnerable persons. The asylum process becomes significantly longer. It is anything but humane.
It is the background to why we are now establishing a completely new reception system. There, one shall not have the possibility of own housing, but everyone shall live in the Swedish Migration Agency's accommodations. There are also much greater opportunities to identify, not least children who may fare poorly and need special support.
I want, in connection with the member's post, to be very clear that this is absolutely not about locking up asylum seekers. We must not do that.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Mr. Speaker! We obviously have different views on what limits the possibility of seeking asylum in Sweden. I believe it is limited by the fact that UNHCR, according to the Tidö Agreement, in its selection of quota refugees shall take into account their integration possibilities when determining who are quota refugees. It is not I who have written this; the Minister himself has actually been involved in those processes.
However, I would like to raise something completely different: persecution from the authorities in the home country. I submitted a written question regarding this to the Minister of Justice last autumn. It may be that the authorities cannot or do not want to provide protection against persecution in the home country.
Many from Belarus have sought asylum in Sweden and been rejected, despite the European Parliament adopting a resolution in May 2023 that sharply condemns the Belarus regime's inhumane treatment of political prisoners and their families and the continued oppression of the political opposition, civil society, trade unions, legal defenders, independent media, and national minorities in Belarus. In the resolution, the EU and the member states are urged to develop a targeted EU support program to help victims of political oppression, including by improving asylum procedures and providing temporary protection in the EU for those seeking refuge for political reasons.
A person who is persecuted or risks persecution, inhuman treatment or persecution by the authorities in their home country can seek asylum in Sweden. Residence permits shall also be granted to those who are judged to be a refugee in accordance with the UN Convention or in need of protection in accordance with common EU rules.
Despite this, the Swedish Migration Agency has systematically deported Belarusians. The year before last, 2022, 130 Belarusians were deported. 98 percent of all those who applied for asylum were sent out; they were denied their asylum applications.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! There are many ingredients in this interpellation debate. In my previous contribution, I did not have the opportunity to address the question of safe countries of origin and therefore intended to start there. But before I do that, I want to bring up this issue regarding quota refugees, which also came up.
Sweden is still one of the largest quota refugee recipients in the EU. We are among the top 5 recipients, even nominally. Given that, I think it is perfectly reasonable that we also set requirements. Sweden has historically received enormously many, both irregularly and as quota refugees.
Sweden also really has a lesson to learn when it comes to integration. We must take full responsibility for those who have come here and who are to become a part of Swedish society. It is not possible to combine this with a continued unsustainable immigration. Therefore, we are reducing the number of quota refugees. But we also say that we want to prioritize those who have integration capacity but also – which the member effectively omitted – women, girls, and hbtqi persons. They are, after all, particularly vulnerable, not least in refugee camps.
When it comes to safe countries of origin, it is something that is applied in many countries. It is a way to prioritize those who come from countries for which protection grounds normally do not apply. We also find this mechanism in the new asylum and migration pact that will soon be in place at the EU level. This is a regulatory framework where one needs to add and remove countries depending on developments. In that case, it is also reasonable that it can occur in an efficient manner.
Regarding persons from Belarus seeking asylum, the member has very rightly posed a written question concerning the former. It is clear that the government wants to be very clear that we condemn the persecution of opposition members by the Belarusian regime and the human rights abuses that are occurring.
But I still want to emphasize that an asylum review is always individual and that it is always the Swedish Migration Agency and possibly also the migration courts that make decisions based on the individual circumstances. As a minister, I cannot step in and overrule. I also do not have the right to have opinions on the assessments made by these independent agencies and courts. If I did, I would be reported to the Committee on the Constitution here in the Riksdag.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have a rather simple question to ask in return when it comes to safe countries of origin. The Minister stated that it is today the Migration Agency's task to identify safe countries. But in the Tidö Agreement, it is presented in a different way.
Who will decide what are safe countries? Will it be the government, or will it be the independent Swedish Migration Agency as an authority?
When it comes to the quota refugees, I have a question about the capacity for integration, which is not the same for all people. We are all born different, and we have different needs. Does the capacity for integration weigh more heavily than the need for protection in an asylum process?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to start by answering the last question. The need in the world is enormous. There should be significantly more countries that received significantly more quota refugees and took responsibility for them.
We are not in a situation where we weigh protection needs against integration capacity. The protection need is enormous, and among those who need protection, this government chooses to look at integration capacity and to prioritize women, girls, and hbtqi persons. I think that is a very wise order.
When it comes to safe countries of origin, it is indeed stated in the Tidö Agreement that a review of the existing regulatory framework shall be conducted to enable countries where parts of the country can be considered safe to be included on the list. Consideration shall also be given as to whether the responsibility for the list should be moved from Migrationsverket – where it currently indeed lies – to the Government Offices.
The Government has, in the 2024 regulatory letter, tasked the Swedish Migration Agency with strengthening the work on safe countries of origin by, among other things, expanding the analysis work and the monitoring of the global situation. With the starting point of being able to update the list with more relevant countries, the agency shall also repeatedly assess which countries meet the criteria to be assessed as safe countries of origin. This is an ongoing work, and it will be reported on September 9, 2024.
Finally, I just want to remind that it looks very different in different countries. The scope of the lists of safe countries varies. The standard for the lists also varies. In some countries, the list has the status of law, while in other countries it is established at the ministry or ministerial level. In Austria, for example, both the federal migration authority and the government have the possibility to establish countries as safe. In France, the list is decided by the administrative board, which consists, among other things, of members of parliament and government representatives.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.