Response to interpellation 2023/24:118 on plans to increase social cohesion

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has asked the Prime Minister what the Prime Minister's plan is for the government's composition and the Government Offices' organization to optimize the work against segregation and for increased social cohesion. The work within the government is distributed such that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.

The exclusion that characterizes parts of society affects us all. Particularly affected are those people who live in areas where exclusion is great and whose lives, freedom, and life chances are limited because of where they live. It concerns areas where unemployment is high, benefit dependency is high, school results are weak, health problems are large, and overcrowding is widespread. Vulnerability to crime, including honor-related violence and oppression, creates insecurity for residents and those active in the areas. Exclusion risks being maintained and recreated over generations.

The starting point for the government's policy against exclusion is that the number of people living in exclusion shall decrease, that parallel social structures shall be combated, that individual responsibility to become a part of society shall be encouraged, and that people's security and life chances shall increase. The work to address exclusion cannot be conducted solely in project form but needs to take place within regular structures. This involves, for example, interventions regarding school, social services, and the labor market, as well as interventions for improved integration and reduced crime and insecurity. The responsibility for the work against exclusion is shared among many cabinet ministers, and I am responsible for the coordination and development of the work in the Government Offices.

By highlighting areas where exclusion has extensive negative consequences, the future prospects and life chances for the individuals living there are strengthened. Through this work, the government also contributes to the society as a whole becoming stronger.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not know that it was Minister Pehrson who was responsible for how the Government Offices are organized, but one learns something new every day. I may have to ask the Prime Minister in another interpellation what he then spends his days doing.

Madam Speaker! I have asked this question because I believe it is an extremely important issue how we can increase social cohesion. Unfortunately, it is deficient today; we see examples of this daily. Sweden, as we all know, has changed in a short time. The economic gaps are growing in society, and the social gaps are growing. Housing segregation is growing, and school segregation is growing. Far too many people experience today that we live in different societies - in different worlds. Society is simply being torn apart before our eyes.

Madam Speaker! This is a development that we Social Democrats find extremely worrying. When people live under such different living conditions as those that exist in Swedish society today and when we see that parallel societies are being created with different rules – their own rules, that is, not the democratically decided rules – and their own logic and their own culture, I become worried. I believe it is life-threatening.

Madam Speaker! I was pleased with the content of Minister Pehrson's answer. I can sign off on most of what the Minister said. But I have not received any answer to the question of what the government's plan for increasing social cohesion looks like and what the plan looks like for reducing segregation.

When some take the liberty to ignore the democratically decided rules and when some experience that the doors out into society, to the labor market, are closed to them and therefore see themselves forced to take other paths to support themselves and to become someone – then the will to be a law-abiding citizen diminishes. Then the will to pay tax and contribute to the public good diminishes. With increased segregation, the cohesion and community in society diminishes. With increased segregation, support for democracy diminishes, and with increased segregation, we risk authoritarian forces taking over.

That is why I argue that the segregation and the diminished social cohesion it entails is life-threatening. Therefore, I ask the Minister Pehrson once again: What is the government's plan to build society back together?

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by saying that the interpellator is mixing up quite a few things. Housing segregation and school segregation do not arise in a vacuum. We have housing segregation and school segregation in Sweden because of an immigration policy that had the full support of the Social Democrats.

When we talk about housing segregation, we mean areas with a high concentration of immigrants - such as Nydala, where I live. We have areas with a high concentration of immigrants because Sweden has received many immigrants. That many newcomers end up in the same areas leads to social problems, but that is due to the immigration policy. Housing segregation has not increased just by itself.

When we talk about school segregation, we are talking about schools where more than 90 percent of the students have a foreign background. How do we get such schools? Well, we get them through an immigration policy where we accept so many immigrants that they all end up in the same areas. Such schools exist in Malmö. And no, the students who attend these schools will probably not feel like they are part of Sweden, because what we call Sweden does not exist around them.

Then I would say that crime and the lack of integration are two different things. Just because one does not become a part of Sweden does not mean one becomes a criminal; it is probably more complex than that. On the other hand, it is a failure for society when people are granted permission to stay in Sweden but still end up in a cultural exclusion and also in parallel societies. But I believe we must be prepared to acknowledge certain things in order to even be able to begin the work of solving this problem.

First and foremost: Sweden is not a multicultural society, but it is the immigrant who must adapt and take responsibility for their own integration process. It is about integration into Swedish society, not into a multicultural society.

An extension of the decision to move to another country is that one adapts to the new country. This should be a matter of course. It is not that one can have expectations that the new country should adapt to one's original culture, but instead one should learn more about the country one moves to, social codes, the language, and so on.

Then it is the case that even if one adapts, one starts at a disadvantage. It is a self-evident fact that those who are born in Sweden and have lived here for a while have certain advantages. There is nothing strange about that, and it is not racism. If I move to India, it is a self-evident fact that the Indians have certain advantages given that they have lived there longer. This means that from the authorities' side, one must convey the message that those who come to this country must exert more effort to succeed than those who have lived here need to do. The immigrant has voluntarily left their country and has placed themselves in a situation where he or she needs to exert themselves harder to catch up in a new country.

What I just mentioned are basic principles that we have disregarded when Sweden has received many immigrants over the years. What has happened is that the newly arrived have moved to areas with high concentrations of immigrants, and then it has been said that Sweden is a multicultural country and that it will work itself out. It is this that has not happened. It has not worked itself out, they have not caught up, and they have ended up in exclusion.

Now I know that the government will implement certain proposals that are part of a more demanding integration policy, but I believe that what is important is what message we have for those who come here. This message shall be: Adapt or go home!

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking my party colleague Åsa Eriksson for an incredibly important debate. If there is one thing we must talk about in these days, it is perhaps precisely how we increase social cohesion instead of that which divides our society.

In everyday life, Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Committee on Justice, so I have chosen to take such an approach in my remarks to the Minister here today. I am also responsible for issues concerning young offenders. What we need to talk even more about is, of course, how we stop the new recruitment to the gangs. There, I do not believe that stricter requirements for children and young people is the solution.

I do not believe in harsher punishments, in lowering the age of criminal responsibility and so on, but we must ensure that children enter our society and that they feel hope for the future. It is perhaps this that we must talk about most of all, because children are not evil by definition. Children are drawn to the gangs because society and we adults have failed. Children today are victims of the crime we see and of the lost sense of community. This, of course, we must change.

As I mentioned, I am a member of the Committee on Justice and have been since the autumn of 2021. This means, Madam Speaker, that the Minister and I had the opportunity to sit together in the committee for a period. I remember some of the Minister's debates. I remember the sense of community that was raised there many times.

We must talk about how children and young people should succeed in school and about an increased association life. Because we know that children and young people must succeed in school, we know that children and young people must have something meaningful to do in their free time, and we know that children and young people must have the opportunity to get a first home, but above all a first job.

I have spent the last two years talking to police officers across our country. I have also met social workers, social workers, the sports movement, municipalities, Brå and researchers, and I have visited and met more teachers and students than I can count. No one—no one, I want to emphasize—whom I have met so far has said that the solution is harsher punishments. No one has either said that the solution is that we should lower the age of criminal responsibility. We know that it is through increased social cohesion that we find the solutions.

What we need to ensure, as I mentioned, is that all children succeed in school and that they can do something meaningful in their free time. I think the Minister spoke beautiful words in his answer. I think the Minister brought up much of what we actually should be talking about, but the fact is that this is not visible in the government's policy.

My simple question in my first post to the Minister is therefore: Can the Minister give at least three examples of community for children and young people to stop the new recruitment and not touch on issues that are criminal law measures?

(Applause)

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! We are heading towards a dark winter. The Swedish economy is in a recession, and the country's GDP is falling. Sweden has almost the worst growth prospects in Europe and higher inflation than many comparable countries. Prices have increased almost twice as much in Sweden as in our neighboring country Denmark.

Households have lost ten years of real wage increases, and the proportion of households struggling to make ends meet has increased to 30 percent. The construction industry is undergoing perhaps the toughest crisis since the 90s, but despite this, we see no major steps from the right-wing government, whether regarding labor market measures or housing policy measures.

In addition to this, housing segregation in Sweden has increased since the 90s, which can be explained by increased economic differences combined with extensive migration. There is a clear connection between areas dominated by households with low incomes and households with a foreign background. High and low earners live increasingly separated in Sweden. Housing segregation in the three Swedish metropolitan regions and in the medium-sized Swedish cities is among the most extreme in the entire Western world.

According to the police, there were 61 vulnerable areas in Sweden on their list for the year 2021, distributed across 27 municipalities. Half a million Swedes live in these areas, of whom the proportion with a foreign background is 74 percent. In the particularly vulnerable areas, as many as 82 percent have a foreign background. In these areas, unemployment is high, educational results are low, and the language challenges have proven to be immense.

My question to the Minister is: What is the Minister for Integration doing to strengthen the Swedish language, to counter segregation, and to ensure that we in Sweden have fewer vulnerable areas during his time as Sweden's Minister for Integration? Isn't that, after all, the basis on which one was appointed to the government coalition?

Member of Parliament Nima Gholam Ali Pour highlighted the extensive migration, segregation, and the school's challenges, but I really wonder what the Sweden Democrats intend to do to break the segregation. What is being done in the budget to increase labor market participation, not least among foreign-born Swedes?

What do you think about the privatized school system as a contributing factor to students being divided in the way the member described, that is, that students with a foreign background attend certain schools and students who have Swedish-born parents attend other schools?

And what resources did SD actually allocate to housing policy so that low-income earners can move to areas other than the vulnerable areas?

What is the actual situation with SFI's quality assurance? I see nothing in the form of a national investigation to ensure the quality needed so that more people can learn the Swedish language properly. Here, a lot of requirements are simply set for citizenship and permanent residence permits, but where in society is one supposed to learn a proper Swedish language and increase one's cultural education?

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Segregation and exclusion are deeply harmful to society. We need to make great efforts and perform hard work to ensure that we break the segregation and make it so that people are lifted out of exclusion.

Massive amounts of different interventions from the entire society are needed. Broad and long-term interventions are required. Measures are needed to increase resources and powers for the social services. Better resources are needed for school and leisure activities. Investments are needed in segregated residential areas. It is about teachers, field assistants, and sports clubs who should have the support needed to be able to give children and young people the faith in the future that they deserve. Children who have not been given the courage to dare to dream are nothing other than a terrible failure.

Madam Speaker! We have the largest economic inequalities in a very long time, and it leaves deep marks in society that divide people and make people unfree. It is people who are socially and economically vulnerable who need society's interventions the most to obtain better and different living conditions.

It is the long-term unemployed who need measures to be able to take a job. It is investments that are needed to break the housing segregation. It requires a policy that every day of the week chooses to break the school segregation over profit.

This government has put municipalities on an economic starvation diet. It will not strengthen social services. There will not be more field assistants. This government is cutting back on support for vulnerable housing areas. This government lacks policy and ambition to break long-term unemployment. That is why they are cutting the budget for labor market policy.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister is: Does the Minister think that the government's efforts are in proportion to the actual social problems?

(Applause)

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Åsa Eriksson was somewhat surprised that the Prime Minister handed over the interpellation on social cohesion to Johan Pehrson. But I suspect that it may have to do with the fact that Minister Pehrson is the minister who has responsibility for integration policy, and under integration policy, there is a specific budget allocation concerning how we break segregation. That was something that the interpellator highlighted particularly in this important issue. I would like to start by thanking Åsa Eriksson for the important interpellation.

It would of course have been desirable for the Prime Minister himself to have come to answer the questions, but we are nevertheless glad that Johan Pehrson is here so that we get the opportunity to debate how segregation is progressing in our country.

When I look at the government's record this far into the year, I see that it looks quite bleak. When I requested the floor in the debate, I sat and tried to think of everything the government has done to break segregation, but there were not so many points I came up with. On the other hand, I came up with more and more regarding the initiatives that the government has taken which, on the contrary, exacerbate segregation.

They started strongly by dismantling the responsible authority, Delmos, which had the overall responsibility for working against segregation. They quickly threw the S investigations into the wastebasket that dealt with a means-tested labor immigration and with countering social dumping. They abolished the investment support, which had truly been needed to build away the housing segregation. They have withdrawn the special state grant to those municipalities that have taken a particularly large responsibility for the reception of refugees. They have dismantled the active labor market policy. It is quite many billions involved there, and it is something that really contributes to exacerbating the segregation.

I read in Expressen last week, I believe it was, that the Minister himself meant that jobs are the best vaccine against gang crime and segregation. I am glad that the Minister sees that connection, but then it also becomes quite absurd that he cuts back on precisely the job policy.

Now we also know what the government has on its table. It does not intend to stop at this, and what we can expect now are reporting laws, which very well may come to include healthcare personnel and teachers. It is also about withdrawn interpretation assistance in healthcare, for example.

The government has managed quite a lot during the first year that exacerbates the segregation that already plagues our country. Does the government have an ambition to break the segregation? If so, it is not shown particularly clearly. It is Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna who are steering the ship now, and we all know that the Sverigedemokraterna have no ambition whatsoever to break the segregation or promote integration. Is it simply the case that this is what Johan Pehrson has to conform to?

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Right now we are a bit all over the place, as someone would say. I like the approach to reassessment from the Social Democrats. There is an approach toward an insight that integration in Sweden has not functioned in relation to the migration we have had to Sweden.

Madam Speaker! In the law programs across Sweden, the upper secondary school act is now used as a cautionary tale of how legislation should not be conducted. There is talk about how important it is to be straightforward and clear about what one wants. It can be said in simplified terms that naturally only the work line and the education line can break segregation, and I hear a lot of sensible things being said today about this from the Social Democrats.

We see, quite rightly, as in the description of reality we received initially from Åsa Eriksson, parallel societies emerging. These are shadow societies where people, not least children, suffer. This must be addressed here and now and in the long term. Therefore, we are restructuring the entire integration policy. This involves, for example, that one shall speak Swedish in Sweden and that requirements shall be set that one must be able to speak Swedish. There were Social Democrats 20 years ago who said that it was the strangest thing they had heard. It was a pity that you said that and that you did not say it as it was then. But now you are doing it, and that is good.

We are working on developing a Swedish course so that one can become a citizen in Sweden. One must understand the constitution regarding the right to equality and freedom of speech and the right to religion and from religion - all that which is central to understanding which Swedish values are important and which are expressed in the constitution. That is what is central. This is what we are now reinforcing.

Today, we presented a proposal from the government which aims at the fact that those who are in Sweden are also expected to have an honest way of life. This is no news in Swedish legislation, but it was something that was removed because people were so very naive. Now we are reintroducing this. But it must be investigated first, and that is also quite important.

I believe that one must link a clear integration policy with both opportunities and clear requirements with having a fairly strict migration. Also, here I hear the Social Democrats expressing something other than what they de facto did in a government position to remain in power.

School is perhaps the most important campfire we have today. Therefore, we focus on school so that boys and girls come to it and stay there. It is a vaccination center against most of the misery.

We are implementing initiatives for youth sports. We ensure that a right is provided linked to the individual to, for example, practice sports or participate in other activities. We invest in girls' organizing in vulnerable areas. We invest in school social teams. We send resources because the municipalities now have a crime prevention responsibility. We ensure that necessary sentencing increases are also combined, so that it is not just an iron fist but also a carrot.

We are doing all of this now. And I would be glad if the Social Democrats would explain what they are not part of regarding this in their new and welcome awakening.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! Segregation is one of the great issues of our time. The other is, of course, the climate issue. But it is no less important to ensure that we now increase social cohesion and break the segregation in society.

We Social Democrats should have done more earlier to break this negative development. I concede that. And I regret that we have not succeeded better than we have despite our efforts. But it is far more than we Social Democrats who should engage in self-reflection. We Social Democrats have placed many proposals on the table of the Riksdag, which the bourgeois majority in the Riksdag, which has been dominant since 2006, has voted down and in that way contributed to increasing the economic and social gaps and increased school segregation. It is therefore more than us who should engage in self-reflection, Madam Speaker.

When I visited Salbergaanstalten in Sala earlier this autumn, the correctional officers there told me, among other things, that they see an increasing proportion of the inmates, often with a gang criminal background, have an ever-increasing contempt for society. And if one has a contempt for society, how are we then to be able to build a sense of community? We must ensure that long before people manage to choose a path other than the society that we all have and which rests on a democratic foundation, we ensure to build a trust in society through an increased sense of community. We must ensure, Mr. Minister, that every mother and father goes to work. There is no other way to increase the sense of community for the growing children, so that they feel they have opportunities to doors out in society, that they can create the life they want and become who they want to be and can be proud of, as well as be able to support themselves and their family. We must ensure that every child manages school with a trust in the future and their own ability if we are to be able to build a sense of community again.

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the Minister for Integration takes up leisure time and sports as an example of how we can increase social cohesion and reduce segregation. I agree with that. But I and the Social Democrats believe that we do it together through the voluntary sector, the sports movement, and popular movements. We create community, but not through leisure checks and other commodified systems that only increase the division in society, which exacerbate segregation and which unfortunately will increase social contempt.

I want, Madam Speaker, that the Minister also examines himself, his party's policy and the Tidö agreement's proposals and explains how he intends to develop a real plan for how to truly increase social cohesion. It is important now.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is difficult to become a part of Sweden. We must not believe that everyone who comes to Sweden will be able to become a part of Sweden. It is difficult because it is always easier to hold onto the alternatives that one recognizes and those that one grew up with. We must realize that it is not everyone who will become a part of Sweden because it is difficult.

Of course, it becomes more difficult when we have political camps that say there is no Swedish culture or any Swedish values. Then the newcomers become even more confused. But it is difficult.

That is why it is good that proposals will be presented that make the return migration more efficient. Because there will be people who come to Sweden who fail in their integration. They need to receive help to travel back to their home country.

But what emerges in the Tidö Agreement is that a requirement-based integration policy is about becoming a part of Swedish society. It is not about multiculturalism; finally, it is said straight out that real integration is about becoming a part of Swedish society with everything that entails. Actually, it has always been so. But unfortunately, we have had politicians who have fed newcomers false dreams of a multicultural society.

Swedes in general appreciate it when others respect their culture and values, which is perfectly natural. The areas with high concentrations of immigrants where Swedish culture is lacking are areas that people flee from. No one chooses multiculturalism.

Madam Speaker! There is much to be done in this area, and there is a long way to go before we can heal the Swedish social community. But I believe that this government has taken the first steps to do just that.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Johan Pehrson for the answer. It may sound nice, but it is not enough because children today are killing children. This must, of course, be stopped. Children must be given dreams for the future. Children must be given hope. Children must be allowed to succeed. And it is we adults who must take this responsibility.

I had the opportunity as late as today to sit down with a police officer who told me that within certain parts of the police, and especially within special operations, they have just changed their way of working. Previously, there was a tendency to look at the event that had occurred. Then one talked about how one would organize. And if one then had the time and opportunity, one asked the question: But what was the problem that caused the event to occur?

Today, one works the other way around and looks at what problems cause the crime to occur. Then one organizes. After that, one looks at the incident itself. Exactly that way we politicians must also work. Exactly that way the government must also work. We must look at what the problems are and find the solutions there.

We cannot just let the children living in these areas fall through the cracks. Unfortunately, that is what we see many times. If we are to get rid of crime at all, that is as much as we must do, just as many of my colleagues have pointed out. Children must succeed in school. Children must be given the opportunity for a meaningful leisure time. Children must have the opportunity to get that first summer job which is so incredibly important.

There is nothing as important as the crime prevention work so that we can address this dark development. We Social Democrats will always do both. And my wish is, of course, that the Liberals also dare to be liberals.

(Applause)

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Madam Speaker! No one chooses multiculturalism, says Member Nima Gholam Ali Pour. Earlier today, we had a debate on the growing antisemitism in Sweden. The entire basis for our national minorities to be able to live a life in peace and freedom and be able to practice their religion, their culture, and their ethnicity presupposes a multicultural society. But that in no way deprives us in Sweden of the fact that we in Sweden speak the common language Swedish and have a majority culture that is Swedish.

I also want to thank my colleague, Åsa Eriksson, who has highlighted this extremely important issue today. I think it is an issue that involves a vision for the future, namely that the government should be able to work systematically to counter vulnerable areas in Sweden, risk areas or even particularly vulnerable areas characterized by parallel structures in our society.

If the Minister for Integration welcomes the Social Democratic policy development in this area, I argue that cross-party cooperation should be sought across the block divide, as in Denmark. One does not need to turn to an extremely nationalist party to achieve long-term solutions, as such a party not only wants to increase the gaps in society but also profit from the segregation and polarization that prevails in society.

I still do not have an answer to my question, and I would like to have it. Will the Minister for Integration during this mandate period work to ensure that the vulnerable areas on the police's list become fewer, and does one have the muscles, economy, approaches, and measures to achieve this? I am very skeptical, not least against the background of the coalition party one has and which currently governs the government.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Johan Pehrson is the Minister for Integration, but we do not see even a ripple on the surface when it comes to breaking down exclusion or segregation, neither the housing segregation nor the school segregation. The Minister is also the Minister for Employment, but we see that unemployment and job vacancies are increasing intensively. What is the Minister doing then? He follows the question.

I asked if the Minister thinks that the government's efforts are in proportion to the actual societal problems, and I thought I heard the Minister say that they are, with the efforts being made. But are they really efforts? They are cuts and reductions.

Several in this debate have pointed out that we need to talk about community, about how we bring people together, not put them down and create a "us and them" but create a community.

Madam Speaker! Here, the Minister can neither blame inflation nor the previous government. This lies entirely in the government's hands, and it is up to proof: Take your responsibility!

(Applause)

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! In next year's budget, Johan Pehrson cuts the state grant to combat gang crime in our vulnerable areas, from 250 million annually to 80 million. That is, therefore, a reduction of 170 million. It is incomprehensible that he does so when our country is in a national crisis. Young guys are murdering each other and lining up to join the gangs' community, and much of this is because society has failed to offer a better community. I truly cannot understand how the government can prioritize lower taxes on snus and plastic bags and at the same time cut the appropriation to counteract gang crime in our vulnerable areas and combat this epidemic state. It is completely incomprehensible. I would appreciate an answer as to why one does so.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has actually written a book about what it was like to take responsibility for the government that was involved in creating a problem where migration was too extensive and integration was too deficient, and about how this built up many difficulties because people all around our country live with different circumstances and how tough it was to have responsibility for this in a municipality. It is very readable, even if I perhaps do not agree with Åsa Eriksson on all her solutions.

That the solution should be anything other than that every child manages in school and that every adult is prepared to take the jobs that exist and that learning Swedish is impossible. In a previous interpellation debate, we spoke about how billions and billions are spent on labor market policy, but that a great personal responsibility is also required. We are now clarifying all of this in different ways.

I look forward to checking with the Social Democrats what they say yes and no to. Should people who do not behave themselves, who are not honest and honorable, and who do not want to be a part of Sweden be able to have their residence permits revoked? These are tough messages, but it is important that the state is clear about what is expected.

I believe we can get to grips with the areas of exclusion. Right now, there is only SCB's mapping of different areas. These are areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and in areas 1 and 2 it is toughest with too many people who are struggling. As I have declared previously, one must consider whether measures of self-sufficiency and language skills should be added to see what problems we have. We cannot just turn over stones, we must also move stones. The police's list of vulnerable areas is also crucial.

The government is now moving forward with the tightenings that are necessary. Young guys should never be able to see that it is possible to make a living from crime, threats, violence and contract killings. This shall not be rewarded.

Children should meet a wall of love. Here, the parents have a personal responsibility. But not all parents are able to take on this responsibility, perhaps due to mental illness or other issues. In those cases, the social services must step in, and now we are rewriting the entire Social Services Act so that intervention can occur earlier and more clearly. We know that it is much easier to help a ten or twelve-year-old than a youth who has ended up in court for the first time. Therefore, we are now making efforts to be able to help and support earlier. This is absolutely crucial.

There is no other way than for more people to go to work in the morning. But that requires more than a labor market policy; it requires an economy that grows, an energy policy, a broad education policy, and a first-class business climate.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to hear that the Minister has read my book. I look forward to reading Johan Pehrson's book on self-criticism and on how bourgeois politics needs to be changed to build community rather than sowing division.

Madam Speaker! When I interviewed the criminologist Camila Salazar Atías, who works at Fryshuset's dropout prevention activity, she said one thing that really struck a chord with me. She meant that many of the youths in vulnerable areas whom she meets and who have a foreign background do not believe that Sweden wants them.

This is so sad. If children believe that they are a burden and that the country where they grow up does not want them, then we have fundamental problems. How are we then to build a sense of community?

I therefore want once again - for the last time today, but probably not for the last time ever - to ask what the government's plan is so that every child growing up in Sweden feels that Sweden wants them, that they are heading towards a good future in the democratic society, that they can be proud, that they will be able to support themselves and that they can be a part of the Swedish community.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the interpellator for an important debate. It has been ongoing for a while - about 25 years, and it will need to continue for a while longer.

I want to say that the plan is hard-boiled: narrow migration, clear integration, an education line and a work line.

To the young people who are having a hard time, the young people who feel that they are not a part of Sweden, we shall extend a hand: Here is the school, here is the place to create conditions for empowerment and a future of one's own, here is the prerequisite that exists for you to be able to become a part of the finest and the freest that exists - the Swedish middle class. They shall be told that.

If they still do not receive help and then do not manage this, we shall use the social services. One must start with the parents, but if one does not reach them or if the parents do not have the capacity – as is the case – we must not hide behind fear so that we cannot intervene early and clearly for the children's best interests. That is the path that exists.

It is about a Sweden that is growing, where jobs are flowing in, where investments are increasing, where one knows that there are people who take their education most seriously, where one is clear that work pays off, where we have compensation systems where it is clear that benefit provision in the form of social assistance is not something long-term that can occur without an expectation of counter-performance, where one looks into whether one can have a benefit ceiling and where one lowers the tax for those with the lowest and medium-high incomes so that it pays off better to work. It is the path for the industrious, the diligent.

I agree that the more these children see adults going to work, regardless of what it is, the greater the chance that they will have a better future and become a part of Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) agreed.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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