(cont.) Response to interpellation 2022/23:113 on the Minister for Energy and Industry's statement regarding the previous electricity price compensation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the payment of previous electricity price compensation and the new electricity support. KD argues that it is impossible to know if all households received the previous support because it did not go through Försäkringskassan or Skatteverket 1. KD considers that the new model is more legally secure and that the government is trying to compensate for deficiencies in the previous arrangement 1 2. KD admits that a similar arrangement is chosen for the gas price compensation due to difficulties with Försäkringskassan 2 3. S argues that KD is spreading unfounded claims about the previous support 4 5. S criticizes that the new support is subject to secrecy and lacks public oversight 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.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! We shall resume where we left off just before the break. This concerns the fact that Fredrik Olovsson has asked me on what basis I based my statement that not all households received the previous electricity support, which was paid out during the spring of 2022. I have received relevant follow-up questions regarding how this is being followed up and whether we intend to take any measures.
And since that application has been made to Kammarkollegiet, it is Kammarkollegiet that has responsibility for the follow-up of that compensation, for which payments were initiated this spring. As I previously explained, one has until February 2023 to carry out the final payments to electricity users in electricity areas 3 and 4. We are now approaching February. When this is completed in February, we expect some kind of follow-up from Kammarkollegiet. If there should be any doubts as to whether all households entitled to the previous electricity support have received it, we will, of course, be prepared to take further measures.
I also want to be clear about how I have previously tried to express myself, because I received a comment that I had claimed that it has not reached the households. What I have tried to convey is that it has been impossible to get an answer as to whether all households that are entitled to it have actually received it.
One factor is that this has not gone through Försäkringskassan, Skatteverket or anything else, but via other actors, from Kammarkollegiet and onwards. A blunt statement is that there is no one who can be held accountable for this. That is what I have raised. There is a big question mark there. That is what we have tried to compensate for when it comes to the new electricity support, by creating greater security so that we can truly know that those who are entitled to electricity support receive electricity support.
This is an attempt to answer the questions previously asked by Fredrik Olovsson before the adjournment regarding how we know this, how I have expressed myself, and what we intend to do if an evaluation shows that it has not reached everyone who is entitled to it.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I have turned to the fact that the Minister has tried to create question marks as to whether the previous support was actually paid out. It is strange in itself that one wants to raise such a question when one has no basis whatsoever for it. It is not the case that Kammarkollegiet has said that there is any problem with the support, as I have understood the matter, but it is the Minister who has done this entirely on his own.
Even stranger it becomes now that one knows that the government is using the same model for its gas support. Just recently, the proposal for a regulation for a gas support aimed at those consumers who have gas for heating was referred. That is great. When I requested such a thing in December, the minister stated that nothing such was in the works. It is great that it is now.
But how are the gas money to reach the consumers? Is it to take place through Försäkringskassan and the model that Ebba Busch has now spoken herself warm for as legally secure and stable - albeit with my addition that it is secret and subject to confidentiality - or will it be according to the same model as the previous electricity support, which she claims is legally insecure and where she spreads a theory that one cannot know if someone actually receives the money?
Madam Speaker! Ebba Busch uses the same model that she just called legally uncertain. The model for payments is essentially the same, almost paragraph for paragraph, in the ordinance. It does not quite add up, of course. The Minister is welcome to clarify the arguments in his next statement.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will be clear about what my purpose has been in highlighting the issue that no one can account for with certainty whether all households entitled to the previous electricity price compensation have received it. It has been to point out what the government has perceived as deficiencies, question marks, and weaknesses and tried to compensate for. I have tried to refrain from saying that it would be legally insecure and instead point out that the model we have now chosen is more legally secure. I feel more secure with that.
Then the question is how this fits together. The assessment is that it is difficult to create a proposal via Försäkringskassan for the gas price support. Do I completely rule out the previous proposal? No, but I state, as I have pointed out in other answers to interpellations during the day, that the government's path is faster and safer for the large electricity support. We did, however, assess that it was a more difficult path for the gas price support. Am I saying that the previous proposal was lousy? No, but I point out weaknesses in it for which we have, as far as possible, tried to find another way forward. It has not been assessed as possible for the gas price support.
I can bluntly state that it is a weakness that at the end of January, quite a few months after starting the payments of the previous electricity support, one cannot answer where we stand. There is a risk that we stand here in a few months and see deficiencies in the new variant that applies to the majority of the support reaching electricity consumers and not primarily gas consumers on the private household side. From that perspective, I mean that it probably still hangs together and that the government stands by the choices we have made, aware of the deficiencies and with the intention of bridging them where it has been possible. Where it has not been possible, we have chosen a similar setup to the previous one.
Fredrik Olovsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I still think it is regrettable that one chooses to spread the type of claims that can lead to the impression that things are not being handled in the right way, that it could be the case that one has been disadvantaged and that there are groups of households that do not get what they are entitled to in a very difficult situation. It is bad that that type of statement is spread when there is no basis for it. I really hope that the Minister ensures that she is completely convinced of, and knows, that what she says in the future is correct when she spreads that type of impression.
There is also no independent review of how the new electricity support will be managed in the sense that there is an opportunity for free, public debate and insight into all details. Instead, it is a classified activity over the coming 20 years. It is naturally also a deficiency if one wants legal certainty.
It is also quite revealing that when the government constructs a support for gas consumers, it becomes exactly the same as that which is already being questioned. It would be good if the potential weaknesses that exist in the support that the government has sent for consultation, if there are deficiencies and that is the perception at the department, are nevertheless addressed so that one does not need to hear that gas customers miss out on their support in the future. That would be deeply unfortunate.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is possible that I am trying to be all too transparent and nuanced in my argumentation here, but what I have said is correct. No one can account for whether all households that are entitled to the previous electricity price compensation have received it. It is a weakness that I am trying to compensate for. Will it succeed? That depends. We will see when the evaluation of the new construction takes place, but that is the reason why the government has chosen a different path.
Have I said that it has been an all-around bad setup? No, but this is a weakness that one needs to keep an eye on. The government is responsible for the fact that we choose the same – or a similar – setup for the gas price compensation, and that is also something we need to be extra vigilant about.
In addition to that, I want to thank Fredrik Olovsson for the correct observations that when we reach the end of February, it is an important issue to follow up on if it were the case that question marks continue to prevail and that no one can answer the question that I have previously asked. In such cases, we in the government will need to rectify it.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.